1 2025:CGHC:12859 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 3430 of 2024 Bhuwanlal Sahu S/o Late Manrakhan Sahu Aged About 72 Years (Wrongly Men- tioned As Bhunavlal Sahu In Annexure P- 1) R/o Chhattisgarh Nagar Near Gaind- lal Kirana Store P.S. Tikrapara Tahsil District - Raipur (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Bhanbai Sahu W/o Late Chandrahas Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Cg Nagar Near Gaindlal Kirana Store P.S. Tikrapara Tahsil District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District - Magistrate Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. S.P. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Shivam Mishra, Advocate For State/Respondent No.2 : Ms. Prabha Sharma, PL ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 18.03.2025 1) The instant CrMP has been preferred under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 04.11.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No.162/2024 which is arising out or order dated 06.02.2024 (Annexure P-2) passed by the VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR 2 learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (C.G.) in unregistered criminal case, whereby the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur has dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner. 2) Brief facts of this case is that the petitioner has constituted the complaint case under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, Chhattisgarh alleging inter-alia that the petitioner is registered owner and has peaceful constructed house no.1050 area 1250 sqft and in possession upon his land house which is situated at Chhattisgarh Nagar, Shahid Vikram Ward No. 58, Tahsil District Raipur Chhattisgarh, which was obtained from family partition of the land. Petitioner was given rent of his house for survival and taking care of his health and paying house tax and water bill. Respondent no. 1 is daughter- in-law of the petitioner and when the house was vacant then the petitioner was given his possession house to the respondent no. 1 only for living, but it is alleged that the respondent no. 1 has forcefully encroached the house and evicted the petitioner from his possession and threatened to petitioner, due to this, the petitioner is being harassed and mentally tortured and has deprived for living and livelihood, therefore, the petitioner has made complaint to the concerned police station against the respondent no. 1 for registration FIR in offence under Sections 294, 447, 506-B of Indian Penal Code against her, but the concerned police authorities has not taken any action and not interested upon the complaint. Thereafter, petitioner has filed complaint case before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, Chhattisgarh under Section 200 of Cr. P. C. in which the learned JMFC vide its order dated 06.02.2024 rejected the complaint case. Being 3 aggrieved with the said order, petitioner filed revision before the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, wherein the learned Sessions judge has rejected revision of the petitioner vide its order 04.11.2024 in Criminal Revision No. 162/2024. Hence, this petition. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order dated 04.11.2024 (Annexure P-1) is completely illegal, erroneous and contrary to the law and hence is liable to be set-aside. Petitioner is very old person and aged about 72 years old and he is suffering from illness and his treatment is going on continuously at several hospital due to very old person and he is unable to income for livelihood. He further contended that the petitioner is only whole dependent upon income of his rental house and after forceful encroached and taking possession the house by the respondent no. 1 which is against the law. He further contended that respondent no. 1 has deliberately and intentional has forcefully encroached the house of the petitioner and also has get out the petitioner from his house and also threatened to commit murder to him. It is further contended that the learned Court below without considering the material available on record to adopt the arbitrary manner dismissed criminal revision is illegal. It is therefore, prayed that this Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and set-aside the impugned order dated 04.11.2024 (Annexure P- 1) arising out of order dated 06.02.2024 (Annexure P-2), in the interest of justice. 4) Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the order passed by the Courts below is just and proper needs no interference. 4 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders and other material available on record with utmost circumspection. 6) From perusal of the order passed by the revisional Court, it is evident that after taking into consideration, the learned revisional Court finds that perus- ing the entire record, prima facie fact has come to light in the complaint and statement that the revisionist/complainant himself had given permission to respondent no. 01 to stay in the house in question, later on respondent no. 01 put his own lock on the house in question. It is not available on record that the revisionist/complainant in any way asked respondent no. 01 to va- cate the house in question or gave any formal notice or that respondent no. 01 initially made unauthorized entry into the house. Besides this, there is a substantial difference in the complaint and the statements of the com- plainant and his witnesses, the fact of abuse and assault and other criminal cases pending is not available on record. There is no confirmatory prima facie evidence in the case, preliminary evidence of the revisionist/com- plainant and his witnesses or police report or statement given by the revi- sionist/complainant to the police, that the house in question of the revision- ist/complainant has been forcefully occupied by respondent no. 01. As there is no lack of correctness, validity or propriety in the impugned order dated 06.02.2024, the impugned order dated 06.02.2024 of the trial Court is affirmed and the revision petition is dismissed as not maintainable. 7) Considering the facts of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the parties and order passed by the Courts below. Considering the submis- sion made by learned counsel for the petitioner that civil suit has been filed against the respondent No.1 for vacating the house in question which has 5 been dismissed by the trial Court due to non compliance of the order. Purely there is a civil dispute by and between the parties, therefore, trial Court as well as revisional Court has rightly passed the order and rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 200 of CrPC. 8) Looking to the entire evidence adduced the petitioner on this point. The learned revisional Court has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner. I do not find any infirmity and perversity and there is no jurisdictional error committed by the Court. 9) Accordingly, the instant CrMP is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant